Teaching Kenya’s history alongside writing about its current politics provides many moments of insight.
Sometimes,
such as when discussing the Shifta war with students in the aftermath
of the Westgate attack, this can produce a sense of déjà vu and
continuity. At others, the stark contrast between the past and the
present is what is most striking.
Last week I was discussing the Kapenguria trial with the bright undergraduates I am fortunate to teach here in Britain.
What
struck us all as we scrutinised the transcript of the trial was the
dignity with which Jomo Kenyatta and his fellow defendants conducted
themselves in the face of injustice and provocation.
Kenyatta’s
final statement to the court after being found guilty on the trumped-up
charges of leading Mau Mau is particularly stirring. ‘What we have
done and we shall continue to do, is to demand the rights of African
people as human beings that they may enjoy the facilities and privileges
in the same way as other people,’ Kenyatta told his persecutors.
Kenyatta’s
performance in the courtroom on that day in 1953 was typical of the
role of the reconciler that he played to great effect for much of his
political career. Elegantly summarised as ‘suffering without
bitterness’ in the title of his 1968 collection of speeches and other
writings, this attitude later gave way to intolerance of dissent. But
that is a matter for another day.
Jomo Kenyatta’s
conduct during his trial and incarceration was informed by a vision of
what lay ahead for Kenya. The prospect of eventual independence shaped
everything he did and said in those most fraught of times.
That
dignity and a longer-term perspective are strikingly absent from the
foreign policy of his son’s government. Instead, members of the Jubilee
Alliance seem to be in a competition to adopt the most absurd and
hypocritical position towards the supposed dark forces lurking behind
the ICC process.
Sentiments that would have resulted
in a trip to the torture chambers at Nyayo House in the 1980s have
become part of the vernacular of the government.
Last
month, Nancy Gitau, President Uhuru Kenyatta’s chief advisor on
political affairs, told The Standard that she thinks NGOs are ‘agents of
neo-colonialism.’ She worked for the American government for 17 years.
Earlier this month, Laikipia’s governor, Joshua
Irungu, threatened to break off relations with Britain. He is,
reportedly, currently in Britain seeking investment.
Last
week, we witnessed the fiasco of the expulsion of British diplomats
from a hotel in Eldoret. Governor Jackson Mandago has subsequently also
visited Britain to find investment.
Such incidents
have been rightly lambasted in the press. However, it is important that
the noise generated by these episodes do not distract us from the far
more serious damage being done by allowing the ICC process to dictate
the terms of Kenya’s foreign relations.
Far from
conducting itself without bitterness, the current government seems to
revel in its acrimonious relations with its erstwhile allies.
Foreign
Affairs secretary Amina Mohamed would no doubt argue that the
alterations agreed on Thursday to the Statue of Rome justify the
approach to diplomacy that she and others have adopted over the past few
months. To many countries, however, the tenor in which Kenya is
conducting its foreign relations seems absurd.
While
the Kenyan government and its African allies reiterated their claims of
the ICC being a tool of neo-colonialism ahead of the Security Council
vote, there seemed little appreciation of the effect such an argument
would have on countries holding the deciding votes.
Argentina, no friend of Britain, abstained. So too did Guatemala.
The
UK and US governments will decide that their interests in Kenya are
significant enough to ignore the taunts of Irungu and others of his ilk.
But other countries with equally significant interests in Kenya but
without the same deeper-rooted historical relationship may not be so
tolerant.
Despite Japan being a major trading partner
and source of investment, its ambassador to Nairobi has been among the
group of diplomats who have been prevented from presenting their
credentials to Kenyatta. This is apparently a punishment for Japanese
support of the ICC. Can Kenya really afford to continue to offend the
likes of Japan in order to protect Mr Ruto and Mr Kenyatta?
Mr
Kenyatta has the personal right to try to escape prosecution, but it is
his duty as president to uphold the interests of Kenya at all times.
The
country needs a foreign policy that secures its future, not just the
freedom of two men. A little of the dignity, courage and foresight
exhibited by his father at Kapenguria is needed.
Prof Branch teaches history and politics at Warwick University, UK danbranch@gmail.com
No comments :
Post a Comment